Nm1477
| This user is a student editor in Salem_State_University/Media_Literacy_(Summer_Session_II) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Nm1477, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Tone
editHi! I wanted to leave you some notes about the content you added to media activism.
- Avoid point of view or subjective statements, which are statements that can differ depending on the reader. For example, the importance of something can differ depending on the reader - one person could see X as very important while the next person disagrees as they feel that Y is a far more important and superior example. The only time that anything like this can be included in an article is when they're attributed to a specific authority and backed up by a source. An example of this would be:
- According to So-and-So, social media is an efficient and relevant way to perform media activism as it can reach multiple audiences very quickly.
- This espouses that social media is efficient and relevant while stating that it's the viewpoint of a specific person. An opinion should never be made as an absolute or blanket statement because so very few things hold true for every person and situation.
- Be careful of phrasing. I didn't see anything particularly bad, but I did see that you rewrote some parts. A good rule of thumb is to keep in mind that rearranging the text can sometimes make it come across differently. Make sure that you aren't writing in a too casual tone, as this can make some things come across as an opinion or persuasive argument, even if you are only re-wording content that was already there before.
- To further elaborate on casual writing and tone, make sure that you aren't writing in an essay style. Some of the material you added was written in a persuasive essay style - something that is normal and fine anywhere else, but clashes with Wikipedia's formal writing style. Avoid things like "of course", "make no mistake", and "it's worth mentioning". This goes back to point of view statements - what may be seen as obvious to the writer may not be to the reader and the reader could also disagree with what is worth mentioning and what is not. A way to re-write the OWS paragraph is as follows:
- Some critics (this should be more specific) stated that while social media helped the OWS movement rapidly expand, it was also a disservice to its end game. OWS lacked a central leader and the open-door policy adopted by the movement caused it to quickly become a disconnected effort where many messages were sent out rather than one unifying message.
- Something to keep in mind is that since there's already a main article on this, so we can get straight to the point of the matter: that media both helped and harmed OWS.
Finally, just make sure that your writing is free of grammatical and spelling errors. I did revert what you've added to the article, but this was because of the above issues - I have no problem with you re-adding it as you address the above, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)